Community Vitality Index

(1)

In 2014, The Upshot, a blog maintained byThe New York Times, posted a national analysis of where Americans were healthy and wealthy, or where they were struggling. The analysis utilized an index comprised of each county’s income, education, unemployment rate, disability rate, life expectancy, and obesity.

As part of the IU Public Policy Institute’s Thriving Communities, Thriving Stateinitiative, Institute staff sought to replicate a modified version of this index for Indiana counties; specifically, to understand how these measures of community vitality are represented when viewed through the Thriving Communitiesurban, rural, mid-sized community framework (policychoices.iu.edu), as well as a regional framework. This analysis suggests commonalities among those places that seem to be thriving or experiencing greater challenges, and informs recommendations that the Thriving Communities, Thriving Statecommissions might make.

NOVEMBER 2015, NUMBER 15-C30 A PROJECT OF THE POLICY CHOICES INITIATIVE

Map 1. Community Vitality Index

Author

John Marron, AICP, Senior Policy Analyst; with mapping assistance from Joti Kaur,Graduate Research Assistant

More Challenged More Thriving

Key Findings

• Mid-sized counties collectively perform exceedingly well on these measures relative to rural and urban communities.

• Educational attainment in rural areas lags behind urban and mid-sized communities, considerably contributing to greater economic challenges.

• Residents of urban areas spend substantially more of their incomes on housing than rural or mid-sized counties.

• Communities adjacent to urban areas; university centers;

and areas with robust, specialized manufacturing industries appear to be faring well.

• Areas that lost considerable employment with the decline of the manufacturing sector and rural counties not proximate to major metropolitan areas experience the greatest degree of challenges.

• Indiana’s larger regional centers (Indianapolis, Evansville, Fort Wayne, and South Bend) anchor thriving regions that benefit surrounding counties and the state as a whole.

• Regions historically centered on manufacturing and regions with their central city located outside the state fare less well than other regions.

Data Sources for issue brief:

American Community Survey, 5-year estimates: 2009-2013 (2015) Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (2015)

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (2015)

(2)

Approach

The Institute replicated the approach set forth by the original methodology utilized by The New York Times, with two important differences. Instead of using median household income, we used a ratio of estimated housing costs to median household income (median household income is included in the tables for refer- ence, but does not factor on its own in the Institute’s index). We also used percent of population with at least an associate degree (instead of a bachelor’s degree).

Most of the data are drawn from the American

Community Survey, 5-year estimates (2009-2013). Life expectancy data are based on life expectancy from birth of females, as derived from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation; obesity data are drawn from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s County Health Rankings. The Upshot uses the disability rate—which it defines as “The percentage of the population collecting federal disability benefits but not also collecting Social Security retirement benefits”—as a measure for unemployed persons not counted as unemployed.

The Indiana index, by its nature, is norm-referenced to Indiana counties rather than all counties in the United States. Table 2 includes data for each Indiana county.

Tables 1 and 3 present data in geographic aggregations with weighted averages based on the component counties’ populations.

Findings by Geographic Designation

In comparing data aggregated by geographic designation, mid-sized counties clearly outperform rural and urban counties. Perhaps this is unsurprising as 8 of the 13 counties in the highest tier of the index are mid-sized communities. On the aggregate, in terms of averages weighted by the population of component counties, mid-sized Indiana counties outperform the state on all measures and outperform the Midwest and the nation on most measures.

In many cases, thriving mid-sized communities serve as bedroom communities to larger urban centers (e.g.,

Hancock, Warrick). In other cases, these communities are vibrant economic centers in their own right (e.g., Bartholomew); and in some cases, they are bedroom communities that also have significant economic activity (e.g., Hamilton, Hendricks).

The data from urban and rural Indiana are similar in many areas: both areas have median household incomes below the state average, more individuals on disability, and lower life expectancies. The cost of housing in urban areas tends to be much higher relative to median household incomes than in rural and mid-sized areas. Urban areas outperform the state average in educational attainment, suggesting their roles as hubs of talent attraction, pulling educated individuals from other—especially rural—communities.

Rural areas substantially lag behind urban and mid- sized areas in educational attainment, with only 23 percent of rural residents having at least an associate degree—nearly 8 percent behind the state as a whole and more than 13 percent behind mid-sized counties.

As educational attainment influences outcomes in other areas included in the index, perhaps it is not sur- prising that 13 of the 14 counties in the lowest tier of the index are rural counties.

In reporting these data by geographic designation, it is worth noting that these measures are based on where people live, not where they work. In the case of counties adjacent to urban areas that score well on these measures, some of that success may be related to regional economic forces in central cities or urban communities. That is, the areas succeeding on these measures within a region are likely capturing the economic benefits of the regional economy. Likewise, groupings of counties—especially rural counties that seem to experience more challenges—may want to work together to devise regional economic development strategies to improve the lives of residents generally, and then seek to differentiate themselves from neighboring communities through investing in quality of life improvements.

Table 1. Weighted averages of geographic designations (see Map 2)

Geography¹ Median household

income Estimated housing costs

as % of median income % w/associate

degree or higher Unemployment

rate % on disability Life expectancy³ % obese (adults)

Urban counties $44,350 22.7% 32.6% 6.5% 11.5% 79.7 31.5%

Mid-sized counties $59,520 19.7% 36.4% 5.3% 9.6% 80.6 30.2%

Rural counties $47,999 19.3% 23.2% 6.0% 12.6% 79.7 32.0%

Indiana $48,248 21.1% 31.1% 6.0% 11.3% 80.0 31.8%

Midwest² $51,367 22.6% 35.9% 5.8% 10.2% 81.5 30.1%

United States $53,046 24.5% 36.6% 6.2% 10.1% 81.3 NA⁴

Notes:

1. Indiana counties only; counties are designated as urban if they have, within their borders, a city designated as urban through the definitions of the Thriving Communities, Thriving Stateproject; mid-sized if it has a mid-sized community and no urban community; and rural if it has neither an urban or a mid-sized community.

2. Obesity and life expectancy for the Midwest are averages of states in the census region (see U.S. Census Bureau for more information).

3. Life expectancy is of females (via Kaiser Foundation).

4. Due to changes in the way data are collected locally relative to national data set.

(3)

Commonalities among Thriving Areas

Counties seen as thriving within the Community Vitality Index generally fall into one or more of the fol- lowing categories:

• Counties serving as bedroom communities to a larger regional center

• Counties serving as employment centers for their own and surrounding communities

• Counties of the home campuses of Indiana University and Purdue University

• Counties with high levels of educational attainment Each of the counties in the highest tier (Map 1) are sub- urban counties of a larger metropolitan center (Boone, Hamilton, Hancock, Hendricks, Johnson, Porter, Posey, Warrick, Wells) or large employment centers relative to their respective region (Bartholomew, Dubois,

Hamilton, Hendricks, Monroe, Posey, Tippecanoe).

The concentration of these communities around regional centers suggests a symbiotic relationship with their economic cores. These communities benefit from the wealth and income generated by the economic activity in the regional center, activity that reverber- ates throughout the region as a whole.

High percentage of economic activity in a single industry sector (concentrated economic activity) also appears as a common theme in thriving counties. The presence of Indiana and Purdue universities in Monroe and Tippecanoe counties, respectively, promote higher educational attainment, and lower rates of unemployment, disability benefits, and obesity. Likewise, the concentrated activity in advanced manufacturing in Bartholomew County, furni-

ture and related product manufacturing in Dubois County, and plastics in Posey County serve as economic drivers within their regions.

While concentrated economic activities serve as a base for economic success, there is risk in over-concentration as well. These communities are reliant on strategies to ensure that these activities remain relevant to the market or they could face significant disrup- tions, as was experienced in the restructuring of the American automobile industry.

Commonalities among Areas Experiencing Challenges

Counties experiencing greater challenges, as suggest- ed by the index, also share a number of similarities:

• Counties generally outside the regional economies of major employment centers

• Counties negatively impacted by declines in gen- eral manufacturing

• Counties with high rates of unemployment and disability benefits payments with relatively low educational attainment and median household income Overwhelmingly, counties in the most challenged tier are rural (Blackford, Clay, Crawford, Fayette, Fulton, Greene, Lawrence, Miami, Orange, Owen, Scott, Starke,

Vermillion). In most cases, these counties not only have modest economic activity, they are distant from major metropolitan centers, making it more challenging to benefit from economic opportunities elsewhere in the state.

These counties suffer from lower educational attainment than the state (except Scott County), which in turn con- tributes to lower incomes and higher rates of unemployment, hindering economic development efforts.

Madison County, the non-rural county that falls into the most challenged tier, struggled in the wake of the global economic restructuring that led to decline in manufacturing, especially American automotive manufacturing.

According to US Bureau of Labor Statistics (via STATS Indiana) data, Indiana lost more than 25 percent in manufacturing jobs between 1990 and 2010; Madison County lost more than three out of four of these jobs (more than 12,000 jobs). In 2010, Fayette County had only 15 percent of the manufacturing jobs it had in 1990. These two counties exceed the norm, but many of the counties in the

most challenged tier lost considerable employment in the manufacturing sector over the past 25 years.

Monroe County appears in the thriving classification, while three adjacent counties appear in the most challenged list; seeming to suggest an education/university based economy has fewer positive externalities in terms of downstream economic activity for the immediate region than other sectors. The opening of I-69 and leveraging opportunities presented by the Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center may hold as much or more opportunity than improving linkages to Bloomington’s education based economy.

Map 2. Indiana counties by community type

Source: IU Public Policy Institute using US Census data

(4)

Table 2. Indiana county rankings on individual components of Community Vitality Index(rank in italics)

County Median house-

hold income

Estimated housing costs as

% of median income

% w/associate

rate % on disability Life expectancy % obese (adults)

Adams $46,695 47 17.7% 10 22.0% 61 4.7% 8 9.9% 14 80.9 13 28.7% 10

Allen $49,370 30 19.1% 33 35.7% 8 5.8% 44 9.4% 12 80.6 21 32.6% 54

Bartholomew $54,165 13 19.4% 41 34.8% 10 4.5% 3 10.2% 19 80.3 25 33.9% 70 Benton $48,711 34 17.6% 9 23.7% 50 5.5% 32 13.9% 67 80.6 21 33.6% 66 Blackford $39,225 88 19.0% 30 16.6% 87 7.5% 82 18.1% 91 78.6 79 36.5% 90

Boone $67,255 3 20.5% 59 48.7% 3 4.5% 3 6.5% 2 81.1 9 27.2% 5

Brown $51,568 19 21.2% 74 28.0% 21 6.0% 52 9.8% 13 80.7 17 31.9% 47

Carroll $50,542 24 17.9% 15 24.2% 44 5.3% 25 9.9% 14 81.5 5 30.6% 24

Cass $41,940 77 18.8% 29 20.4% 70 5.8% 44 10.9% 27 79.9 33 34.7% 80

Clark $50,496 26 20.6% 63 27.2% 26 5.5% 32 13.4% 64 78.3 85 29.7% 18

Clay $46,430 49 19.0% 30 23.9% 47 6.9% 71 15.6% 80 78.7 77 36.3% 89

Clinton $48,953 33 19.4% 41 19.3% 78 5.3% 25 12.2% 45 79.6 44 29.4% 14 Crawford $39,700 87 19.3% 38 16.6% 87 7.7% 83 18.1% 91 78.6 79 37.4% 91 Daviess $47,165 44 16.9% 3 20.9% 68 4.5% 3 11.3% 31 78.6 79 32.1% 50 Dearborn $56,946 10 21.0% 70 26.5% 28 6.5% 58 10.6% 26 80.0 31 31.7% 45 Decatur $48,047 37 18.6% 27 21.3% 67 5.0% 13 12.6% 51 80.7 17 29.6% 16 DeKalb $47,247 43 19.1% 33 25.1% 35 5.3% 25 15.1% 75 79.7 38 27.0% 4 Delaware $37,474 91 22.6% 87 29.7% 17 7.1% 77 15.4% 78 79.1 62 33.4% 63

Dubois $54,780 12 17.1% 5 29.7% 17 4.2% 2 6.8% 3 80.9 13 29.9% 20

Elkhart $45,693 53 21.3% 77 24.4% 42 5.2% 20 11.3% 31 81.0 12 29.9% 20 Fayette $37,391 92 22.2% 86 15.1% 91 8.0% 87 17.4% 89 76.8 91 31.0% 36 Floyd $53,961 14 20.5% 59 30.5% 14 5.2% 20 12.2% 45 79.0 67 30.7% 28 Fountain $45,884 51 18.4% 22 20.1% 72 7.1% 77 13.0% 56 79.5 48 30.6% 24 Franklin $49,516 29 21.2% 74 26.1% 31 6.5% 58 9.9% 14 79.9 33 27.5% 6 Fulton $40,168 83 21.6% 81 19.7% 75 6.3% 55 16.2% 85 78.6 79 35.4% 85 Gibson $49,329 31 17.7% 10 27.8% 22 4.6% 7 11.6% 34 80.3 25 31.0% 36 Grant $39,747 86 19.3% 38 24.0% 46 7.0% 74 15.1% 75 79.1 62 33.1% 59 Greene $43,980 62 18.0% 17 22.6% 59 8.0% 87 15.4% 78 79.2 61 34.1% 73

Hamilton $82,468 1 19.4% 41 61.7% 1 4.1% 1 5.4% 1 83.8 1 22.9% 2

Hancock $62,981 4 20.1% 55 35.4% 9 5.2% 20 10.5% 22 80.4 24 29.6% 16 Harrison $50,510 25 18.5% 24 22.3% 60 5.7% 43 13.6% 66 79.7 38 34.0% 72

Hendricks $68,297 2 19.9% 53 41.4% 5 4.7% 8 7.2% 4 81.7 4 32.1% 50

Henry $40,679 81 21.1% 72 21.9% 63 6.9% 71 13.1% 58 78.6 79 30.5% 23 Howard $43,590 66 20.5% 59 27.5% 24 6.4% 57 14.0% 68 78.8 75 35.5% 87 Huntington $46,148 50 19.5% 47 25.1% 35 5.8% 44 11.8% 37 79.7 38 32.7% 56 Jackson $46,501 48 19.4% 41 21.6% 64 5.1% 17 10.5% 22 78.9 73 37.7% 92 Jasper $57,500 9 17.7% 10 23.1% 54 6.8% 68 12.3% 48 79.9 33 32.5% 53

Jay $40,235 82 18.3% 21 18.5% 82 5.8% 44 15.0% 73 79.3 58 34.7% 80

Jefferson $43,795 65 20.9% 69 24.1% 45 6.0% 52 11.6% 34 77.6 90 33.7% 68 Jennings $44,128 61 20.1% 55 16.1% 89 6.8% 68 12.8% 54 78.7 77 31.9% 47

Johnson $61,231 7 19.8% 51 36.2% 7 5.0% 13 8.4% 8 80.3 25 30.7% 28

Knox $42,119 74 18.5% 24 29.3% 20 5.3% 25 11.9% 40 79.1 62 34.3% 74

Kosciusko $50,859 22 19.1% 33 26.5% 28 4.9% 10 10.0% 18 80.5 23 31.3% 40 LaGrange $47,617 38 21.0% 70 15.1% 91 4.5% 3 9.0% 9 79.9 33 33.8% 69

Lake $49,035 32 22.9% 89 27.4% 25 8.1% 89 12.0% 42 79.6 44 35.4% 85

LaPorte $47,538 40 20.3% 58 25.6% 33 7.7% 83 12.6% 51 79.0 67 33.9% 70

(5)

Table 2. Indiana county rankings on individual components of Community Vitality Index(rank in italics) ^cont.

County Median house-

hold income

Estimated housing costs as

% of median income

% w/associate

rate % on disability Life expectancy % obese (adults) Lawrence $42,627 71 20.6% 63 22.8% 57 8.2% 91 14.4% 70 79.0 67 34.4% 75 Madison $43,120 69 21.4% 78 25.1% 35 7.1% 77 15.2% 77 78.1 87 35.2% 84 Marion $42,334 73 24.8% 91 34.3% 12 6.5% 58 11.8% 37 79.0 67 31.3% 40 Marshall $45,709 52 20.6% 63 23.9% 47 5.6% 32 10.3% 20 80.7 17 32.2% 52 Martin $44,740 56 17.7% 10 22.7% 58 5.4% 31 11.0% 29 80.0 31 30.6% 24 Miami $42,023 75 19.5% 47 18.1% 84 6.8% 68 14.8% 72 79.0 67 33.4% 63

Monroe $40,052 85 26.1% 92 49.8% 2 5.8% 44 8.0% 6 81.8 2 22.8% 1

Montgomery $46,797 46 19.3% 38 23.8% 49 5.5% 32 11.9% 40 79.6 44 34.6% 78 Morgan $55,354 11 19.9% 53 24.7% 40 5.8% 44 12.9% 55 79.4 52 33.6% 66 Newton $50,262 28 19.1% 33 15.8% 90 7.0% 74 13.3% 62 79.6 44 35.7% 88 Noble $47,117 45 19.4% 41 21.5% 65 5.3% 25 12.1% 43 79.5 48 34.6% 78

Ohio $50,377 27 20.8% 67 21.4% 66 6.9% 71 10.5% 22 79.5 48 30.9% 34

Orange $38,826 89 19.5% 47 19.1% 79 7.7% 83 16.7% 88 79.7 38 31.7% 45

Owen $43,950 63 20.5% 59 17.6% 85 8.1% 89 16.0% 83 79.4 52 34.5% 77

Parke $43,870 64 17.7% 10 20.4% 70 7.0% 74 12.6% 51 79.4 52 28.6% 8

Perry $47,596 39 17.0% 4 18.9% 81 5.9% 50 13.4% 64 79.3 58 30.8% 30

Pike $40,680 80 19.4% 41 19.4% 77 5.1% 17 15.8% 81 78.9 73 34.4% 75

Porter $62,794 5 19.6% 50 34.6% 11 6.3% 55 9.2% 11 80.7 17 30.8% 30

Posey $58,750 8 16.8% 2 29.9% 16 4.9% 10 9.9% 14 81.1 9 31.3% 40

Pulaski $44,764 55 18.1% 18 19.1% 79 5.5% 32 13.1% 58 79.7 38 34.7% 80 Putnam $50,821 23 20.7% 66 23.3% 53 6.5% 58 12.2% 45 79.3 58 30.6% 24 Randolph $40,904 78 18.5% 24 20.8% 69 6.6% 62 12.5% 49 79.4 52 32.8% 57 Ripley $47,537 41 21.4% 78 23.7% 50 6.7% 64 11.6% 34 79.7 38 31.1% 38

Rush $47,401 42 19.0% 30 19.9% 74 5.6% 32 12.5% 49 79.1 62 30.9% 34

Scott $42,898 70 21.1% 72 34.1% 13 6.7% 64 17.9% 90 76.4 92 29.5% 15 Shelby $51,440 21 21.9% 84 18.2% 83 5.6% 32 11.5% 33 80.1 30 30.8% 30 Spencer $52,991 15 20.1% 55 23.0% 55 5.3% 25 10.9% 27 81.1 9 30.3% 22 St. Joseph $44,582 57 16.7% 1 24.6% 41 6.7% 64 10.5% 22 80.2 29 28.6% 8 Starke $40,126 84 21.6% 81 20.0% 73 7.4% 80 16.2% 85 78.1 87 34.7% 80 Steuben $48,080 36 19.8% 51 27.8% 22 5.0% 13 10.3% 20 81.4 6 33.2% 60 Sullivan $43,510 68 18.4% 22 24.4% 42 7.4% 80 16.3% 87 79.1 62 30.8% 30 Switzerland $44,143 60 22.0% 85 16.7% 86 5.9% 50 13.0% 56 78.8 75 31.5% 43 Tippecanoe $44,246 58 23.6% 90 43.1% 4 5.1% 17 7.8% 5 81.3 7 25.5% 3 Tipton $52,686 16 17.9% 15 25.5% 34 5.5% 32 14.5% 71 79.5 48 33.2% 60 Union $44,161 59 21.4% 78 24.8% 38 5.6% 32 13.1% 58 79.4 52 33.4% 63 Vanderburgh $43,540 67 21.6% 81 30.4% 15 5.5% 32 11.2% 30 79.4 52 33.2% 60 Vermillion $42,524 72 18.2% 19 22.0% 61 8.7% 92 13.3% 62 78.2 86 31.2% 39

Vigo $40,692 79 21.2% 74 29.7% 17 7.8% 86 14.1% 69 78.0 89 31.5% 43

Wabash $45,286 54 17.5% 6 23.6% 52 5.6% 32 12.1% 43 79.9 33 33.0% 58 Warren $52,317 17 18.2% 19 22.9% 56 6.1% 54 15.0% 73 80.3 25 29.1% 12

Warrick $62,351 6 18.6% 27 37.8% 6 5.0% 13 8.3% 7 80.9 13 29.7% 18

Washington $41,986 76 20.8% 67 19.7% 75 6.6% 62 16.1% 84 78.5 84 28.8% 11 Wayne $38,350 90 22.6% 87 24.8% 38 6.7% 64 15.9% 82 79.0 67 27.6% 7

Wells $48,136 35 17.5% 6 26.6% 27 4.9% 10 9.1% 10 81.8 2 29.2% 13

White $51,444 20 17.5% 6 26.1% 31 5.2% 20 13.1% 58 80.8 16 32.0% 49

Whitley $51,914 18 19.2% 37 26.3% 30 5.2% 20 11.8% 37 81.3 7 32.6% 54

(6)

Thinking Regionally

In many cases looking at indicators of economic activity or well-being on a county-by-county basis is limiting;

many Hoosiers cross county borders for work, shop- ping, and recreation every day. In looking at distinct regions within the index, the Institute used the Economic Growth Regions designated by the Indiana Department of Workforce Development.

Clear patterns emerge across the state in looking at regions. Central Indiana (Indianapolis area) and

Evansville anchor areas of strength for Indiana’s economy; supporting these regions to compete nationally will continue to be important for Indiana’s economic well- being. Further, while not having as many top tier counties as the other two, a solid group of counties in the Fort Wayne and South Bend regions—largely along the US 30 and US 33 corridors—provide other areas of strength.

In many ways, this is not unexpected. The Indianapolis region is a nationally significant metropolitan economy, striving to compete in a global economy. Fort Wayne, Evansville, and, to a lesser degree, South Bend are metropolitan areas with Midwestern reach, and some national significance; including the orthopedic industry in Kosciusko County. Generally, these are areas that people outside of Indiana can readily recognize. These four regions (34 counties) represent 38 percent of the state’s land area and 63 percent of all jobs.

In the next tier are the Bloomington, Lafayette, and Columbus regions whose robust economies in the central cities possibility benefit from proximity of these regional centers to the Indianapolis region. Ties between these communities and the Indianapolis region benefit the state as a whole but seem to benefit neighboring counties less well.

The regions centered on Jeffersonville and

Gary/Hammond are oddities in that those communities are not regional centers in the traditional sense; rather they anchor the Indiana portion of much larger regions of national and global significance. Economic activity in

these areas are more oriented toward their regional centers outside the state (with capital and commerce flow- ing across state lines) than they are oriented toward other areas of their regions or Indiana as a whole.

The remaining regions (around Muncie and Terre Haute) rank low on income and educational attainment and high on unemployment. These regions were negatively impacted by the economic restructuring resulting from the decline and relocation of a number of manufacturing jobs. Of all the regions in the state, these are the only two not expected to grow by more than five percent between 2010 and 2040, the Muncie region is expected to lose more than nine percent of its population over that time.

Map 3. Indiana Department of Workforce Development regions

(7)

Bibliography

Flippen, A. (2014). Where are the hardest places to live in the U.S.? Retrieved September 18, 2005, from The New York Times: The Upshotat www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/upshot/where-are-the-hardest-places-to-live-in-the-us.html?_r=0 Indiana Business Research Center. (2015). Employment & earnings. Retrieved October 5, 2015, from STATS Indiana at www.stats.indiana.edu/topic/jobs_wages.asp

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. (2015). US health map. Retrieved September 18, 2015, from US Health Map at vizhub.healthdata.org/us-health-map/

Kaiser Family Foundation. (2015). Life expectancy at birth. Retrieved September 18, 2015, from The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation at kff.org/other/state-indicator/life-expectancy-by-gender/

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. (2015). County health rankings & roadmaps: Building a culture of health, county by county. Retrieved September 18, 2015, from County Health Rankings at

www.countyhealthrankings.org/app/indiana/2015/overview

US Census Bureau. (2015). American community survey, 5-year estimates (2009-2013). Washington, DC.

Table 3. Weighted averages of Indiana regions (see Map 3)

Geography Largest city Median house- hold income

Estimated housing costs

as % of median income

% w/associate degree or

higher

Unemploy -

ment rate % on

disability Life

expectancy² % obese (adults)

Region 1 Hammond $51,541 21.5% 27.9% 7.6% 11.7% 79.7 34.2%

Region 2 South Bend $45,678 20.9% 28.7% 5.9% 10.9% 80.5 29.9%

Region 3 Fort Wayne $48,317 19.2% 29.4% 5.7% 10.5% 80.4 32.5%

Region 4 Lafayette $45,447 20.7% 30.3% 5.7% 11.1% 80.2 30.5%

Region 5 Indianapolis $54,280 22.4% 38.4% 5.8% 10.3% 80.1 30.2%

Region 6 Muncie $39,238 21.4% 24.1% 6.8% 15.0% 78.9 31.7%

Region 7 Terre Haute $43,688 20.1% 26.2% 7.4% 14.0% 78.5 31.6%

Region 8 Bloomington $42,438 22.2% 34.1% 6.5% 11.3% 80.4 28.6%

Region 9 Columbus $48,425 19.9% 25.4% 5.5% 11.7% 79.5 32.1%

Region 10 Jeffersonville $49,540 20.4% 25.5% 5.7% 13.9% 78.5 30.7%

Region 11 Evansville $49,025 19.4% 29.9% 5.2% 10.6% 80.0 32.0%

Indiana $48,248 21.1% 31.1% 6.0% 11.3% 80.0 31.8%

Midwest¹ $51,367 22.6% 35.9% 5.8% 10.2% 81.5 30.1%

United States $53,046 24.5% 36.6% 6.2% 10.1% 81.3 NA³

Notes:

1. Obesity and life expectancy for the Midwest are averages of states in the census region (see U.S. Census Bureau for more information).

2. Life expectancy is of females (via Kaiser Foundation).

3. Due to changes in the way data are collected locally relative to national data set.

(8)

Randall Shepard, Chair David Bennett

Susan Brooks Kathy Davis David Lewis Greg Lindsey Marissa Manlove

Mark Maassel

Mark Miles, Co-chair Jamie Merisotis

Zachary Scott Patrick Shoulders Mark Lawrance, ex officio

John Graham, ex officio Lilliard Richardson, ex officio

Michael McGuire, ex officio

THRIVING COMMUNITIES, THRIVING STATE

A project of the Policy Choices Initiative

RURAL AREAS/

URBAN AREAS MID-SIZED AREAS SMALL TOWN

COMMISSION COMMISSION COMMISSION

David Bennett, Co-chair Jeff Rea, Co-chair Shawna Girgis, Co-chair Betsy McCaw, Co-chair Tracy Hamilton Souza, Co-chair Michael Kubacki, Co-chair

Dan Bradley Richard Aguirre Lionel "Bo" Beaulieu

Jeb Conrad Ed Clere Beth Bechdol

Ellen Cutter Heather Ennis Phil Boots

Karen Freeman-Wilson Christy Gillenwater Andy Bowne

Gretchen Gutman Allan Kauffman Chris Cail

Christina Hale Cinda Kelley-Hutchings Doug Inman

Michael Huber Carol Kramer Clint Kugler

Danette Howard Lee Lewellen Tom Leedy

Jim McClelland Blair Milo Don Orr

Rose Meissner Scott Robison Kurt Phegley

John Myrland Ellen Rosenthal David Shaffer

Maria Quintana Tom Schuman Michael Thissen

Theresa Farrington Rhodes Terry Seitz David Voris

Earline Rogers Tom Utley Charlie Weaver

Casey Stanley Jonathan Weinzapfel

Nikki Woodson

COMMISSION COORDINATORS

Drew Klacik Jamie Palmer, AICP John Marron, AICP

Project Co-chairs: Kathy Davis and Randall Shepard

Mark Lawrance Laura Littlepage

ABOUT THE IU PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE AND THE POLICY CHOICES INITIATIVE

The IU Public Policy Institute delivers unbiased research and data-driven, objective, expert analysis to help public, private, and nonprofit sectors make important decisions that impact quality of life in Indiana and throughout the nation. A multidisciplinary institute within the IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs, we also support the Indiana Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (IACIR).

Thriving Communities, Thriving State(policyinstitute.iu.edu/thriving) is a project of the Policy Choices Initiative. The goal of the Policy Choices Initiative is to encourage discussions among government, nonprofit, and private sector leaders about issues that are or will be critical to Indiana’s future—to provide policy options for action.

334 North Senate Avenue, Suite 300 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-1708 (317) 261-3000

www.policyinstitute.iu.edu We sincerely thank our sponsors for their generous financial

support for this project.

IU PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE BOARD OF ADVISORS

Eli Lilly and Company Foundation